Winners Never Quit, BILL!

Alright, now that everyone's settled down a bit, here are some real thoughts about the whole Peduto withdrawal thing:

I'm with JP in that I don't believe that Otis dropped out because he didn't want the campaign to go negative. Democrats are intimately familiar with and painfully aware of the power of negative campaigning. To say a politician is above "going negative" is like saying the sea is above the sky.

Dayvoe's interview with Doug Sheilds, however, presents a more nuanced picture: Bill doesn't want to go negative because it will affect his image and his ability to run for office in the future. Indeed, when so much of the Democratic establishment lines up against you, it may not be a wise move to twirl up a wet towel and whack their boy in the love spuds. Anybody with an older brother on 'roids will tell you that much. If Bill was hoping to count on the support of some of those establishment funders later down the road on another campaign, best not to enrage them now.

Or as the first vulgar saying goes: "Don't shit in your own bed."

More subtly, however, I would argue that the effectiveness of negative campaigning at this point also had something to do with Bill's decision. With only (Um... September... January... February) seven months in office, it was difficult for Peduto to argue that Ravenstahl conceived policies were bad. If Luke had been in office for twelve years, a la Tom Murphy, Bill would have many more defective policies to target. Unfortunately, without a good, solid, broad issue to hang his hopes on, the campaign had to basically rely on the old chestnut, "Anything you can do I can do better."

So, perhaps this is a tactical manoeuvre on Bill's part: give the kid a bit more rope and let him hang himself with it in '09.

But this brings me back to the efficacy point. The number of Ravenstahl scandals seemed to multiply every day; from the first "Arrested at a Steeler's Game" to the "RonAir Trip" and everything in between, there was enough ammunition for the Peduto camp to work off of. Unfortunately for Otis' campaign, very little of it seemed to stick to Opie. Considering some of the blistering missteps made, one would have thought that Luke would have been a dead duck; but that was not to be. Perhaps Bill just felt that at this point, if the kid can weather these political storm nothing (short of a dead girl or a live boy) is going to turn the campaign around with only one and a half months to go.

Or, as the second vulgar saying goes: Don't piss into the wind.

Bill's major disadvantage was that he was running against a blank slate incumbent. Luke could decide what he wanted to be and force the apparatus of government to enact policies that would be popular, knowing full well that they only have to effective until right after the election. That may be cynical, but I don't think that it's coincidental that after blowing off the Lower Hill last week and alienating members of the Black leadership, the administration resurrected and resolved the lingering Oak Hill residents/University of Pittsburgh problem in the former Allequippa Terrace housing projects.

Although, if they had waited a couple days until after Bill's withdrawal, they wouldn't have had to rush around to get something accomplished.

I doubt that Otis is going to sit back and pull an October surprise, jumping into the Fall race, partially because that will just possibly tick off those all important Democratic funders, but mostly because I'm pretty sure that switching parties is illegal at this point. Chris Briem has the same hunch.

But them's my thoughts for now. Hopefully I can slough off the local politics for awhile and get to stuff that really matters to my readers:

Federal reductions in CDBG allocations to Cities and the benefits of a land/building split real estate tax.

Tag(s): Bill Peduto, Pittsburgh Politics

This Blog Supports Luke Ravenstahl for the Hell of it

I was quite disturbed to wake up this morning, open up the Post Gazette's "Early Returns" section, and find myself lumped in with a bunch of damned, dirty, hippie, Peduto supporters. According to the two headed beast that is James O'Toole-Rich Lord, yours truly is one of several local blogs that skewer Mr. Ravenstahl almost daily, and heap scorn on mainstream media reports that, in their view, go easy on the mayor.

Is it me or does that almost make this place sound like a RonCo Showtime Rotisserie?*

If anyone thought that we were attacking Mr. Ravenstahl because we had an affinity to another candidate, they would be sadly mistaken. Mr. Ravenstahl happens to occupy a very conspicuous position in City government, one where it is not easy to hide, making him vulnerable to slings and arrows thrown by people like me. The mayor is a target; Luke happens to be the mayor. As I said to some guy at the City Paper,

I think that the recent obsession with Ravenstahl is more of a function of the general proliferation of blogs. Tom Murphy was hit pretty hard too towards the end of his term as blogs were coming into their own, and there was some nasty, nasty stuff written about him (both fair and unfair) on the internet. Something tells me that if David L. Lawrence or Ebeneezer Denny were alive during the time of blogs, they would have been similarly reamed. (I think Thomas Paine actually wrote a pamphlet about Denny called "An Appeal to the Common Sense of the Citizens of Pittsburg and their Mayor" questioning his service in the Revolutionary War.)...

If there was a reason that we aren't doing more Peduto critiquing, it's not because he's a better candidate or he's somehow better liked by the author here, but because he's not out standing in front of the cameras every day throwing out new policy proposals, conveniently timed to improve his chances of being elected mayor.

Or perhaps he IS doing that, and we're just not paying all that much attention to him.

I'm sure as the election gets closer and closer we'll start being snarkier and snarkier 'round here, and we'll be making the obligatory comparisons between Ravenstahl's Opie and Peduto's Otis in this Maybury we call Pittsburgh.** Indeed, we raised the ire of some ardent Peduto supporters on several occasions last time he ran for the mayor's office.

So with that in mind, here are today's obligatory shots at Councilman Otis: I find it hard to believe that a guy who represents some of the most privileged portions of the City of Pittsburgh can truly appreciate the problems of the least advantaged. I'm also skeptical of the air of faux populism that he seems to engender in his most loyal followers. I am not convinced of the superiority of his policies and am deeply concerned that they will unnecessarily cost me time and cause me needless frustration.

Of course, having said that don't let anyone think that suddenly I'm supporting Ravenstahl either.

In general, however, I'm not a big fan of politicians, so I certainly see no reason to change my opinion during this race. I will remain safely agnostic for now until a real candidate runs.

What's Joe Cusick doing these days?

---
*Set it and forget it! Only 4 easy payments of $39.95!
**H/t to Luke. Somebody should pay him royalties.

Tag(s): Pittsburgh Politics

This Post Contains Nothing At All About Luke Ravenstahl

I was going to write about the new eatery coming to the old Lazarus building Downtown, complain about the lack of other reasonable activities Downtown after dark, complain about how "someone" should do something about it, and finally conclude that the market demand pretty much reflects what's out there and it's up to more people demanding evening activities downtown to really affect the market, so you better damn get up off your lazy collective bitch-assess right now and do something about it!!!

Instead I'm going to write about the Mayor's little run in with the law. Sorry for the misleading post title, but I figure that now that the MSM has broached the subject, it's safe to snark at. Besides, if everyone else jumped off a bridge, wouldn't you?

Personally, the answer is a resounding "No" as I am acro-, agora-, and hydrophobic. I won't go into it but I was once hit by a water cannon while standing on a mesa.

I digress.

If you haven't heard the alleged story yet, you probably don't work in City Government, or you've been living under a rock for the last 12 1/2 hours. Apparently Luke allegedly got into a bit of an alleged argument with a Police Officer in an alleged throng of people at an alleged Steelers game, words were alledgedly exchanged, there may have been some alledged pushing, and the (then) Councilman allegedly was handcuffed and brought to the alleged security office. There was *gasp* strong language used and Luke may have been *oh horror!* drinking, however, there is no record of what actually transpired and no charges were ever brought.

The best quote from Luke in the PG article, by the way, is

We couldn't control ourselves because of the force from behind.

Giggity.

But anyway, I think this is actually a really great opportunity for Luke.

First, the article intimates that he was drunk, or at least was indulging in copious amounts of libation. A couple more drinks and he'll almost have enough to match the first page of Bill Peduto's bar tab.

Second, run ins with the law are par for the course 'round these here parts. Just ask Cyril Wecht, Tom Murphy, or Ben Woods. Luke is in good (but unindicted) company. This scandal doesn't even have the corpse stealing angle of the Wecht case.

Third, if this is all Luke had on his wrap sheet when he was 26, he should consider himself very, very lucky. Let's just say that when I was his age, I had a very embarrassing incident with a Dodge Aries, a transgendered hooker, 17 illegal Haitian migrant workers, the FCC, an unidentifiable liquid in a test tube given to me by a friend, and a herd of goats (in hats). Under the terms of my settlement agreement, I'm afraid I can say no more.

Fourth, hell, this was at a Steelers' Game! I say if you aren't drunk out of your mind assaulting cops, you should be locked up... but mostly for your own protection.

Fifth, I think that it's refreshing to a see an Angry, Drunk Politician arguing with the police in front of a mob and getting dragged away in handcuffs. This is, interestingly enough, also how Andrew Jackson became President.

Sixth, The Angry Drunk Politician would make a really good blog name.

Tag(s): Luke Ravenstahl

Christ, Not this Shit Again! - Spring 2007 Primary Edition

The ink is not even dried on the forged ballots from 2006, and already the Post-Gazette is talking about the Spring Primary race for Pittsburgh Mayor.

On the P-G's list are the following potential candidates for Mayor:

Luke Ravenstahl: Incumbent-ish

David Caliguiri: Son of Former Mayor

Mike Dawida: Ex-County Commissioner

Rich Fitzgerald: County Council President

Dan Frankel: State Representative

Michael Lamb: Prothonotary

Bill Peduto: City Councilman

Harry Readshaw: State Representative

In my opinion, the P-G isn't really thinking outside the box. There are dozens, nay, hundreds of potential candidates for the office of Mayor of Pittsburgh. Here are a smattering of potential candidates that they overlooked*:

JIM RODDEY
OK, the former chief executive no longer lives in the City and he's a Republican, but those things can be remedied with a quick trip to the Board of Elections. He's a known commodity and he didn't lose to that dope Cyril Wecht. Speaking of which...

CYRIL WECHT
Cyril Wecht is still, as of the writing of this post, under indictment. Normally, this would be a drawback, but in a city where a viable candidate for the County Political Committee can be an ex-con, Cyril would be a step up. Plus, he'd be great entertainment.

BOB O'CONNOR
Death isn't the handicap it used to be in politics. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft lost his Senate seat to a dead Mel Carnahan and Republican Glenda Dawson ran for a Texas State Legislator seat even though she was stiffer than Bob Dole's member. Bob has the added bonus of being more charismatic than any of the other candidates that the P-G listed.

TOM MURPHY
Well, political death is terminal.

HARVEY
Harvey is a 6 ft. talking rabbit that lives in Jimmy Stewart's head. Unfortunately, he's running on the Constitution Party Ticket, but otherwise he's the perfect candidate.

So, get used to it folks, we have another 5 1/2 months of this bullshit.

I have my space in the political fallout shelter reserved; first come, first served.

---
Sorry, Woy I'm not running for mayor; I have some scruples, dude. Although, I will run for Supreme Overlord of Western Pennsylvania... again. [Damn Green Party!]

The 411 on 311 ($1.99 at 7-11)

[Yesterday's post was deleted by a State Senate clerical error. ]

I'm of mixed mind on the new City-wide 311 information system.

In its technologically advanced format, Ravenstahl's Response Line allows city residents to register non-emergency concerns, ask questions or make comments by dialing 311. Operators will log the concerns, assign them a number for future follow-up and forward them to the appropriate departments for action.

Two years ago, at the height of the city's financial crisis, former mayor Tom Murphy closed the former service center to save money. The late Mayor Bob O'Connor started the process to reopen a service center, and Mr. Ravenstahl continued the project when he took office Sept. 1 after Mr. O'Connor's death.

Mr. Ravenstahl said he isn't concerned that the system will be overwhelmed with calls about unfilled potholes and unpaved streets. He said he wants to know about all of those situations so the city can deal with them in a timely fashion, regardless of the city's tenuous finances.

OK, so on one hand the new 311 system will reduce the calls that I receive from people in the City (and parts of the County) that think I do everything. On the other hand, however, I will now be inundated with calls directed to me by a phone system that thinks that I do everything.

So, of course, I'm concerned, ever if Hizzoner is not.

Now, there's going to be a big difference, of course, between "taking appropriate action" and "solving the problem"... but I doubt that the general public understands that nuance and there's always going to be some level of bureaucratic leakage in getting anything done. We have TPS reports to fill out.

There's also that whole thing about redistributing limited resources across an increasing number of problems. At least when we didn't know about the problems, we didn't have to solve the problems. Now we have to solve the existing problems and the new problems.

But that's just my gripe as a bureaucrat; my gripe as a citizens is that people like me are going to be trying to solve my complaints.

That's scary.

Tag(s): 311

A Bureaucrat's Eulogy for Bob

Let me start off by saying that I didn't know Bob O'Connor personally. When you work in a large bureaucratic structure, the help doesn't get a lot of face time with the Lord of the Manor. In my years during the previous administration, I believe that I had exactly two contacts with Tom Murphy and I can't say that I made much of an impression on him either time. We bureaucrats are supposed to sit in the back and make these people look good, or at least like less of the idiots that they can be.

I believe that I actually was in the same room with him a handful of times. The one that sticks with me most is a seemingly random encounter at Coffee Tree Roasters, where he walks in and starts shootin' the breeze with a couple tables of patrons, and working the room. Even though this was back when he was employed by the Governor, there was a real recognition from those sipping their coffee that this was a Big Man of Pittsburgh.

And yet, he was really, really short; I almost literally ran into him coming out of the Steel Building, and couldn't believe how tiny this man with great hair was. I suppose he exuded more than his stature.

I didn't really have much of a chance to make Bob look good as part of my duties. This hits at the nub of the tragedy of Bob's death: three tries at Mayor, ten years campaigning, and only 8 months as Mayor. Poor guy didn't even have a chance to enjoy it.

Still, Bob won't be remembered as a great mayor of Pittsburgh, but he will be remembered as a great guy. His real gift, as many have been remarking, was his touch with Pittsburghers. I'll remember the thousands that poured into the City County building to partake in the yinzer food and possibly line up for a handshake with the Mayor. I'll remember the Redd-up drive, not for it's spine chilling use of Pittsburghese, but for the passion that he brought to it. And, of course, everyone will remember the Cookie Cruise, even if, like me, you never got to go. He was one of us; a true Son of Pittsburgh.

John Donne's Devotions upon Emergent Occasions, no. 17 reminds us:

If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory
were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or
of thine own were: any man's death diminishes
me, because I am involved in mankind...

And Pittsburgh is diminished for having lost Bob.

Thanks Boss.

Mayor O'Connor: Great Mayor or Greatest Ever?

I got to thinking this morning during my Sunday morning bus ride (somebody has to keep PAT in business during the weekends), and it occurred to me that Bob O'Connor could be the greatest, most politically savvy mayor of the City of Pittsburgh, ever... and yes, I'm including David Lawrence, William MaGee, AND Ebenezer Denny in that list. Bob's a heavy hitter here.

Consider the following: in the recent past, Americans have found themselves bound together through crisis and adversity. The recent example of this are the events of September 11, 2001, which, for one brief shining moment, all differences in the country were blurred away. The President used this incident to push the country into one war, and then another; a successful political ploy.

Now, Pittsburghers, as a more concentrated community would feel this sense of "oneness" more acutely. Indeed, anyone who partied in the Southside, Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Oakland, Squirrel Hill, Shadyside, etc. etc. the night of the XL Superbowl will testify to this. On that day, we were all Steeler fans... unless you were a Seattle fan, in which case we spit on you.

OK, now consider the following: the City Firefighters sold out of all the Bob O'Connor wristbands in a matter of hours, two banners are full of get well wishes to Bob, and the day that Bob was admitted to the hospital, the local network news covered it intensely. Truly, the outpouring of support was and has been immense.

BUT! Other than the "Redd Up" Campaign, I can't think of a single Bob policy that... actually, I can't think of ANY policies. I can't think of anything that has significantly changed for the better since January. What's more, I can't think of ANY bad news that has come out of City Hall (aside the 9th Council District fiasco) recently. In fact, the Bob O'Connor illness has actually cajoled a "get well wish" from the Trib.

If that had been Tom Murphy, the Scaife rag would have pushed assisted suicide.

Anyway, this is why I think that O'Connor may be the most brilliant Mayor the City of Pittsburgh has ever had: O'Connor's illness has distracted the citizenry from the crap that is whirling around our heads. Such strategic distraction is something I would have expected from a Karl Rove, but never from a local politician. What's more, the electorate is 100% behind Bob, but I doubt they could tell you what Bob has actually done for them. The result: re-election. Bob is clearly a mastermind of local Democratic machine politics!



Alternatively, Bob is still really, really sick and deserves our best wishes and hopes that he gets well soon.

Things You Should Have Known (Had You Been Paying Attention)

If you were reading the Post-Gazette (or, for those of you that refuse to read such liberal smut, using it to line your bird cages) you may have noticed this article about the impending departure of recently sacked Mayoral Chief of Staff B.J. Leber from the board of the URA.  The article wanes about halfway through, but picks up with a (seemingly) irrelevant piece of Downtown Redevelopment news, to wit:

The [URA] board is expected to move forward tomorrow with a proposal by the History & Landmarks Foundation to renovate three vacant buildings at Fifth Avenue and Market Street for retail and housing.

The URA plans to purchase a deteriorating building at 439 Market from the city for $40,000, plus costs, and then sell it and two adjacent URA-owned structures to Landmarks Development Corp., a History & Landmarks subsidiary, for $257,000. The price would have been $300,000 were it not for a $43,000 credit History & Landmarks is getting to complete demolition on the city-owned building, which adjacent property owners have described as a hazard in danger of collapse.

One of the URA-owned structures involved is the old Regal Shoe Co., a favorite of preservationists. Mr. Dettore said History & Landmarks intends to keep the facades of all three buildings.

He said the foundation is considering either apartments or condos for the upper floors of the buildings and retail on the ground level. He views the project as a complement to much larger Fifth and Forbes initiatives, including the new PNC skyscraper, which will include housing, a hotel, and offices.

This is the same property, by the way, that the URA and City refused to sell to PH&LF back in August.   

Had you been paying attention to some of my previous posts, you would have remembered this little gem from back in August, in which I made mention that Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation is, in so many words, a Dicky Cougar-Mellon-Scaife Production (tm).  And, if you recall as I do, that the other arms of the Scaife Leviathan (including the Trib and the Allegheny Institute) have been not so fond of the previous attempts to "revitalize downtown".  I find it interesting, therefore, that PH&LF has yanked its dusty ol' Landmarks Development Corp off the shelf in order to "help" the City in the development of downtown (and presumably receive some additional financial "help" of its own).

Could it be that Mr. Scaife was visited by the ghosts of Pittsburgh Past, Present, and Future and he's now mended his evil ways?  Could Mr. Scaife and the LD Corp. have found a way to make money on a project where so many others have failed?  Or could this just be an insidious plot to stab at the political corpse of his arch-nemesis, Tom Murphy? 

Me?  Having seen Murder on the Orient Express one too many times, I guess I can see the allure of corpse stabbing. 

Mayor's Office Purge - Analysis

Every now and then we here at The Angry Drunk Bureaucrat like to take a break from our litany of poop jokes to do thorough and thoughtful analysis of local and national politics and policies. The recent shake up at the City of Pittsburgh Mayor's Office give us just such an opportunity and the weekend gave us an opportunity to think it over in a bacchanalian orgy of Political Systems Analysis.

Some of the key passages from the Post-Gazette analysis, which struck us like an elderly driver strikes a farmer's market, were as follows:

Mr. O'Connor's predecessor, Tom Murphy, believed that teams need creative tension. He made appointments with conflict in mind.

Whether or not Mr. O'Connor meant to orchestrate friction, that's what he got.

Ms. Leber, in charge of all department heads, didn't think they should have to send copies of communications with City Council to Mr. Regan. Mr. Regan, in charge of relations with council and other governments, thought nothing of bringing council members' beefs directly to department heads in his blunt style, without alerting Ms. Leber.

"I knew there was some tension in the office," said acting City Controller Tony Pokora, an independent official, after the firings. "I didn't realize it was that severe."

...

In the days that followed, Mr. Regan was among just three aides with daily or near-daily access to the mayor. His late wife was Mrs. O'Connor's cousin.

Another frequent visitor was senior secretary Marlene Cassidy, who has been with the mayor for so long she is practically family. She lives with Mr. Regan.

Less frequently admitted was mayoral spokesman Dick Skrinjar, a public relations pro charged with putting the best face on a grave situation.

This passage made us immediately rush upstairs and yank an old, dusty college text book off our shelf: Organizing The Presidency, by Stephen Hess. In this book, Hess argues for two competing historical managerial styles for the Federal Executive, one a collegial model and one a corporatist. From the book:

The Roosevelt and Eisenhower White Houses have come together to represent the extremes of presidential organization. Roosevelt's organization has been described as a circle with the president in the middle surrounded by a collection of generalists of no fixed assignment competing for his favor. At its best, this organization allows the president to rub two aids together and light a fire of creativity; at worst, such a system results in petty quarreling, forcing the president to get rid of one or both combatants. Eisenhower's model has been viewed as pyramidal. In this steeply hierarchical system, each aide, usually a specialist, is given a carefully prescribed duty. At worst, decisions fall between the boxes on the organization chart or have been rendered insipid by the time they reach the president; at best, information arrives on time and has the support of all parties. The more fluid Rooseveltian organization is likely to produce more policy innovation; the more structured organization of Eisenhower is likely to give more guidance to the permanent government.

The Wheel-and-Spoke model's inherent weakness is its overreliance on multiple actors, leading to confusion as to direction and stymying policy. The Pyramidal model can lose vital information if it does not percolate up to higher levels or if a decision maker acts as a choke point in the flow.

Historically, Democrats have favored the Wheel-and-Spoke model while Republicans have favored the Pyramidal model. The best example of the Wheel-and-Spoke version working is Kennedy's handling of the Cuban missile Crisis, while the worst is Kennedy's handling of the Bay of Pigs. The Eisenhower administration shows the best of the Pyramidal model, while the current Bush administration could probably be used as an example of the worst.

If you are quick witted, you'll probably see where we're going with this: the O'Connor administration has made a significant shift away from a collegial model to a more authoritarian corporate model.

What does this mean for the future of the O'Connor Administration? Clearly with the Mayor's illness it becomes necessary to "reduce the fuss," i.e., simplify the administration's decision making process during this crisis. Arguably, at this point, it becomes necessary to show a clear chain of command, should there be any attempt at mutiny, which, if you believe the newspapers, there was.

It also means, however, that the resiliency and innovation of the administration (if it existed in the first place) will be severely diminished. Multiple decision makers may lead to conflict, but they also provide for multiple points of view; multiple points of view lead to a more thorough understanding of policy implications.

Still, the most disturbing development of this change is this: the Pyramidal model allows actors to make policy with little oversight within their particular sphere, as they can block the flow of bad information to the Executive. The result is sufficient latitude to reward particular interests or pursue particular policies that, one may argue, could be criminal. Multiple levels of oversight and conflict help to minimize this problem.

So, effectively the concentration of power in the hands of a small clique of "Pols" in the Mayor's Office, following the purge of the "Wonks" will probably lead to a more explicit series of policies that reward O'Connor favorites/patrons/friends and a lessening of policies that seek to innovate the City of Pittsburgh. Alternatively, the Mayor's Office will be able to ruthlessly pursue its agenda without fear of being stymied from within.

But that's just my take on it.

Open Letter to Bill Toland

Dear Mr. Toland,

Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the unsolicited attention given to this little corner of the "Blurghosphere" through your column/journal.  Indeed, this little creative endeavor of mine would likely never see any attention from the popular press, if not for your intervention, that is, outside the random searches for words like "nipples" and "gussets," which seem to be bringing a larger than anticipated contingency of my loyal readership, small though it is.  By my reckoning, there are roughly 12 people that read this thing; I know half of them are me, checking for comments, one is obviously you, three are me searching for pages that contain the words "nipples" and "gussets," and three are anonymous readers who only identify themselves through cryptic handles such as "Throdgar the Unmerciful," "Mr. Philo T. Bigglesworth," "Heywood Jablome", and "Tom Murphy."  If not for your efforts, my work here would consist largely of wiping the smutty virtual graffiti off of my virtual message board and learning that 6 + 1 + 3 + 3 = 13.  So, for this I am truly appreciative. 

There are however, two points of contention that I wish to discuss.  It seems that you fellows at the P-G are still adamant about bandying about the word "Drunken" when referring to the title of my little opus here, despite my prior protest.   I did notice that you attempted to include the correct appellation in your recent column, although your efforts did fall short.  Now, while I do no profess to be proficient in English, French, Mandarin, or any other civilized language, or even Welsh, I do profess to be an expert on this blog and I do know for a fact that the title of this monstrosity is The Angry Drunk Bureaucrat. While "Drunken" was previously considered, it was ultimately rejected in favor of "Candy-Assed", which was later changed to "Pansy-Assed", which was later changed to "Doug", which finally became "Drunk."  So, despite you insistence to the contrary, the title is The Angry Drunk Bureaucrat, and will stay that way forever, or at least until I get bored.

Second, I did notice that in you recent Casino Journal, you quoted my thoughts on the recent City Council proceedings in part, as follows:

"Don't you hate it when your bosses have set their opinion based on some non-data driven 'gut feeling,' rather than thorough analysis? Everyone loves the Isle of Capri plan. Loves it in a way that Roger Ebert doesn't love 'North.' And why not? It promises everything: hotels, supermarkets, an arena, a chicken in every pot..."

Those ellipses (ellipii?) are indication of an important omission, one that provided a punchline to an increasingly escalating series of absurdities which culminated in both a reference to a failed (or reneged) Reconstruction Era promise and a pornographic act. 

I assure you, the phrase "mule that gives hummers" was not a light or transient literary construction. 

Now, I recognize that this phrase may be one that offends the good sensibilities of your regular readership, despite the quiet slouching of American society towards Gomorrah, as evidenced by the renewal of The O.C. for another season and the abrupt cancellation of Arrested Development.  Still, the phrase, I believe, was apt in the context, and should have been included. 

Fortunately for both of us, I did not go with my initial inclination which included a phrase that is (1) anatomically impossible, (2) biologically hazardous, and (3) involves Bea Arthur.  Let us both consider ourselves lucky that you didn't have to censor that bit of smut. 

I will, however, choose to ignore these two transgressions if you use the word "omphaloskepsis" in an upcoming print article for, if nothing else, it would prove definitively to me that you believe it is the utmost duty and responsibility of a free press to report the Truth, fairly and accurately, and that you really do think these kinds of jokes are funny. 

I await your omphaloskepsis.

Sincerely,

"O"
The Angry Drunk Bureaucrat

The Blistering Speed of teh Intarweb

Back on January 21, 2003, I happend to be on the Commonwealth's website at around 10 AM and noticed that Mark What's-His-Name was pictured as Governor of Pennsylvania... which was fair, as he was Governor at that time. That made me wonder when they would update the site and put Eddie's picture up.

Upon reload, they replaced the photo at noon... just as Eddie was being sworn in.

So I did the same with the City of Pittsburgh this morning, to see when Tommy-boy's picture would be replaced.

Imagine my shock when I logged in at around 10 AM and saw this:



Obviously someone was really, really anxious to bump Mr. Murphy out.

Although, the joke's on them: as of 5PM Tom Cox was still listed as Deputy Mayor for Policy & Development.

Burying Caesar

An interesting article in the Trib, here on O'Connor's silence about the top post in his administration.

OK, so the article isn't that exciting, but this quote was:

"It's an experience that I don't think any of the rest of us had," [David] Donahoe [former aid to Mayor Richard Caliguiri] said. "We were in much more control. I mean, if we wanted to adjust tax rates, we did it. Now you can't do it -- no one will do it -- and you've got oversight. If the mayor said we were going to save the Pirates, that's what we did. There wasn't a question."

Donahoe is right; that era is over.

We're currently entering a new age in Pittsburgh politics, in my opinion, ending the Strong Mayor period. We'll never see the likes of a David Lawrence, a Pete Flaherty, a Dick Caliguiri, or, dare I say, it a Tom Murphy. At least through the next few years, we're going to see a weaker form of Mayoral governance for a variety of reasons:

(1) The overall decline of center Cities in general;
(2) The decline of Pittsburgh in relation to the suburbs;
(3) The fiscal crisis (the proximate cause) and the related apparatii; and
(4) The decline of the Democratic political machine.

These are systemic factors, with their roots in both local and national politics and policies.

The absense of these factors allows for:
(1) Federal & State money being sent to Metropolitan areas;
(2) Federal & State money being sent to Pittsburgh over the suburbs;
(3) Unlimited (or nearly so) spending;
(4) Patronage and credit claiming for projects at all levels.

A Strong Mayor can get shit done, but can only do so if s/he has access to money, people, and power. That is no longer the case. The Mayor will now find himself bound to at least 2 oversight boards, and by extension the Governors and Legislatures, and more so to Council.

Without a strong mayor, I predict that we will see an increase in consensus and coalition building. More people will be trying to share power; fewer big things will get done. Collaboration has its own perils; as I'm fond of saying, Rome didn't conquer the world by holding meetings, it did it by slaughtering all that opposed them.

Like Murphy or not, he's left an indelible mark on this city, both in buildings and in our pocketbooks; it is unlikely that O'Connor and his successors will rise to the same level.

Of course, that may not be a bad thing.

Pittsburgh Unprepared For Full-Scale Zombie Attack

From America's Finest News Source

PITTSBURGH—A zombie-preparedness study, commissioned by Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy and released Monday, indicates that the city could easily succumb to a devastating zombie attack. Insufficient emergency-management-personnel training and poorly conceived undead-defense measures have left the city at great risk for all-out destruction at the hands of the living dead, according to the Zombie Preparedness Institute.

Angry Drunk Bureaucratic Library

I was perusing the "Laurels and Lances" column of the Trib today, when I came across this:

An observation: Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy has agreed to donate the papers of his administration -- 12 years' worth -- to the Heinz Pittsburgh Regional History Center. Says David Halaas, the center's director of library and archives: "It would be a boon to scholars and people who want a better understanding of their government." Actually, the papers should serve as a textbook for how not to run a government.

After I got past the final snarky comment, it got me to thinking, what would I, the Angry Drunk Bureaucrat, have in my morass of an office to donate to the Heinz History Center to give future generations a better understanding of The Bureaucracy?

So I threw open my files and drawers to see what was there:

• One Coffee Mug, stained;
  
• Dozens of Pay stubs;
  
• "Request for Leave" forms;
  
• A screed for Richard Florida from the Pittsburgh City Paper;
  
• A screed against Richard Florida from the Pittsburgh City Paper;
  
• Wet naps;
  
• A bowl;
  
• One plastic spoon;
  
• Two plastic forks;
  
• Seven plastic knives;
  
• One Hundred Twenty-Three Business Cards;
  
• A package of transparent sleeves to hold One-Hundred Twenty-Three Business Cards that don't quite fit in the Rolodex.
  
• One packet of "Hot" Sauce;
  
• A half-empty bag of cough drops;
  
• One Scathing Letter to Authority X, terminating a Business Relationship;
  
• One complementary personalized calculator with "Pittsburgh" spelled wrong;
  
• One coffee mug warmer (banned);
  
• 1000 paperclips, in a chain;
  
• Evidence.
  

The actual files themselves are pretty arcane, and consist mostly of invoices and well worded and finely crafted directives telling people to "get bent." The telephone & complaint log would be an interesting addition, if you care to know I was called a g*d*mn motherf*cker by an irate Mrs. S, on January 13, 2003 at 10:34 AM, 11:47 AM, and 3:12 PM, and then again on January 14, 2003 at 8:15 AM.

Not much to start a library, but I'm hoping to add the World's Largest Rubberband (Gumband) ball, which will, no doubt, be the start attraction. I may have to apply for a grant.

The position of curator is open and I am accepting applications.

My Final Word on the 2005 Pittsburgh Mayoral Primary (Part 1)

Alright, after this, no more posts about the 2005 Pittsburgh Mayoral Primary.

I promise.

Until Part II.

Michael Madison from Pittsblog and Maria from 2politicaljunkies are pushing me to get to my friggin' point. I personally thought my point was to take a look at the pretty colors on the map and see if my image-hosting provider was worth a damn. I feel that I was wildly successful on those accounts, but unfortunately had the audacity to interject my own, apparently incorrect, interpretation of the data.

For shame!

I will endeavor never to have an individual thought of my own from here on in and gladly and blindly follow the ways of my betters who think that the egg needs to be broken at the big end, not the small, toast should eaten be butter side up, not down, and that the donut-hotdog stand hats should be blue, not red. Because it matters.

Or not.

Anyway enough of the scorn, back on topic: let’s complicate Primary Election matters further and look at some head-to-head and head-to-head-to-head races within the primary. According to the County Elections Results...

In 207 Districts, Peduto beats Lamb
In 197 Districts, Lamb beats (or ties) Peduto
In 331 Districts, O'Connor beats Peduto
In 73 Districts, Peduto beats (or ties) O'Connor
In 361 Districts, O'Connor beats Lamb
In 43 Districts, Lamb beats (or ties) O'Connor

AND...

In 307 Districts, O'Connor beats Peduto AND Lamb
In 66 Districts Peduto beats Lamb AND O'Connor
In 28 Districts Lamb beats O'Connor AND Peduto
(3 ties)

AND THEREFORE, according to my math...

In 54 Districts, O'Connor beats Lamb, but not Peduto
In 141 Districts Peduto beats Lamb, but not O'Connor
In 15 Districts, Lamb beats O'Connor but not Peduto

So O’Connor trounces Peduto at about 5:1 and Lamb at about 9:1. Peduto and Lamb are roughly neck and neck. But who, pray tell, is siphoning votes away from who? Is Lamb a spoiler for Peduto? Is Peduto for Lamb? Would an O’Connor voter vote for Lamb over Peduto or the other way around? Well, what does this all mean?

I have a couple theories given what I’m seeing from the data:

I see five different undercurrents in the Pittsburgh Democratic structure: the Old Guard, the Revolutionaries, the New-Old Guard, the Black Caucus, and the Leftovers. Let's start last to first:

The Leftovers are the ones that voted for Henderson, Repovz, and Ludwig. These guys had some good spotty showings, but overall were barely a blip on the electoral map. I'm surmising that the people that voted for these candidates were either (1) Democrats disaffected with everything or (2) the candidates' families. As in any political system, there are going to be some fringe elements that draw some of these votes away from the more major candidates.

The Black Caucus represent the ones that voted for Kendrick, and is more indicative of some lingering, but very real, racial issues that the City of Pittsburgh faces. I found it interesting from the very beginning that Kendrick managed to pull out second place showings in several of the Voting Districts, and even a first place showing in one or two. These Districts were almost all (if not all) African American communities. While Bob O'Connor placed first almost always, it seemed interesting to me that Kendrick, who had fewer resources than nearly anyone other candidate, still managed to pull out a 2nd place showing. I believe that this means one of two things: (1) the African-American population of the City of Pittsburgh feels that the official Democratic party machine enfranchises them (which explains their turn out in support of O’Connor) and (2) the other, non slate, major candidates did not sufficiently represent their views. Of course, it could be both.

The New-Old Guard lies within the structure of the Old Guard. They are the ones who are looking to tame the beast that is the Democratic Machine so they can ride it. These are people that have been successful within the old system, but are generally wary of the direction the city is going. They are not necessarily interested in overthrowing the old system, but rather using the old system to their advantage as they make incremental reforms. They talk more about bond repayment and lien collection funds than anything interesting. They are trashed by the Old-Guard as being traitors and by the Revolutionaries as being apparatchiks of the system. They are dull and boring and dull and probably voted for Mr. Bucket-head himself, Michael Lamb.

The Revolutionaries seek to overthrow the system as it currently stands. They aren't looking to tame the beast or ride the beast, but kill the beast...and probably dance upon its grave singing "Hallelujah." They assume the posture of outsiders, although, given where their candidate Mr. Peduto did well, they represent a class of educated Bourgeoise-Bohemians ("BoBos" from now on, as I can't type "Bourgeoisie" over and over) who genuinely see Pittsburgh, or at least parts thereof, as a potential shining city-on-a-hill. While I have heard lofty goals and commendable ideals, the nuts and bolts of policy seem a bit spotty to me and, in the worst instances, elitist.

The Old Guard could have run this election in 1952, and probably did, although with less efficiency. It says a lot about the evolving Pittsburgh electorate when the Democratic Machine can only bring in 48% of the vote for their candidate. More specifically, this is the tell tale proof of my assertion that the hold of the Democratic Party is not as monolithic as it once was or even appears to be. Still, the Old Guard, in this election seems to be subdivided into "The-Powers-That-Be," "Those that Vote for The-Powers-That-Be," and "Those That Still F'ing Hate Tom Murphy." The Old Guard doesn't want change or trouble, and idealizes a city without troubles like the one it so fondly remembers from its childhood. These guys are comfortable with a Mayor who doesn't concern himself with big ideas, but a guy who can schmooze it up with fundraisers. It means stability; it means consistency; it means money. And it probably means they still get their damned early-bird discount.

But let's move away from the analysis of who I think the major factions are and do a little thought experiment:

WARNING: COUNTERFACTUALS AHEAD THAT INCLUDE THE LIBERAL USE OF A FICHUS TREE. THOSE WHO SEE REALITY AS BLACK/WHITE, GOOD/EVIL, WITH US/HATE AMERICA, SHOULD BEWARE.

Let us suppose that on the eve of the Allegheny County Democratic Committee meeting for endorsements, someone kidnaps Bob O'Connor's beloved fichus tree. The ransom note demands that Bob immediately drop out of the race, withdraw his name from consideration, ensure that no other Democrats enter the race, and keep his mouth shut about the race until November. Only then will his beloved fichus tree be returned safely. We are now left with six candidates to chose from.

So the question is: who wins the mayoral primary?

Given the factional structure above, I believe that Lamb would have gotten the blessing and endorsement of the ACDC as he is the "safe" choice. He lacks Bob's charisma and he's probably too close to the current administration, but he minimizes the risk of a complete undermining of their power.

Now, does this matter? Peduto's own victory in Council District 8 shows that you don't necessarily need the endorsement to win. I think we can agree, however, that the endorsement doesn't hurt you.

What about the money? Bob had a ton of it and won. Bill had less than Mike and came in second. Kendrick had nothing and still eked out a fourth place showing. Does money matter in this case? If Bob is out of the picture, where does this money flow to, if it flows at all? Does the ACDC endorsement affect any of that flow, or is Bob supporting certain policy positions that lend themselves to contributions by certain donors. Are Mike or Bill willing to whore themselves out to highway contractors for the chance of large contributions? What about the Soffer Organization? The Firefighters Union?

My reaction is that the big amounts of money are going to flow towards the "safe" choice, i.e., someone who has the least chance of rocking the boat and furthers policies in the interests of the contributors. The less safe candidate still has a chance, however, in that not all of the money will flow; the chances to tap into this money are much better than against the Bob O'Connor powerhouse.

But will the money make a difference? The runner-up candidates all suffer from a similar problem: they are very strong in their base, but weak across the city. Additional money would allow these candidates to spread their message a bit further outside of their base. But will a Revolutionary message resonate in Brookline? A Traditionalist message in the Southside? A Black message in Point Breeze? Can money help get people to like you and your message, or just get your name out there?

I'm pretty sure that there are some messages that aren't going to play well across factions. Zero-line budgeting probably infuriates those of the Old Guard that are dependant on their consistent budget line item. Similarly, a property lien back-back program means absolutely nothing to people that are more concerned about police or safety. But messages can be broadened and money can drive those messages home.

So we can run whatever scenarios we want: without the Old Guard in the race, do the Revolutionaries take on Old Guard votes and money or do the New-Old Guard? Are the Old Guard more likely to vote for The Revolutionaries or the New Old Guard? Who does the Black Caucus lean towards? What will the Old Guard voters do?

Those are just some things to think about and clog up my inbox about. I have no answers as I open the egg from the little end, eat my toast butter-side-down, and wear the red donut-hotdog hats.

Even More Follow-Up... even for the Bureaucrat Haters

First, to get some stuff off my chest: I apparently pissed off a very ardent Anonymous supporter of Bill Peduto, as I am apparently a "Lamb partisan" and should "get over it." Sorry, I meant "GET OVER IT."

Whatever.

Dude (or Dudette if that is the case), if I supported Lamb and you supported Peduto, we share one same quality: we both lost. Bob O'Connor made us our bitches. He beat us like we were his whores and we are supposed to like it. Frankly, if Peduto won or Lamb won, we would be having a different discussion, but from my prospective we're both losers.

So it goes.

I don't want to skip ahead, but as I said in the comments, there are some questions I'd like to see answered: (1)how to either get the money to the message or the message to the money [or the alternative question, "what would the race have looked like if money was no object?"], (2) what would a race without O'Connor have looked like, and, more esoteric, (3) what would a race without Tom Murphy have looked like.

But I'm not there yet. I'd like to build up some element of suspense, so I have some other maps that I'd like to show. I'll try to save you my personal opinions... at least for now.

Bob:


So where did Bob do well in terms of percentage vote by ward? The Hill, Homewood, Greenfield, Larimer, Hazelwood... and a bunch of other places. Well done Silver Fox. Bob didn't do well at all in Point Breeze, Shadyside, parts of Oakland, Highland Park, and Mt. Washington. Again, the City is his bitch.

Bill:


As I said before, Bill did his best in Shadyside, Bloomfield, Mexican War Streets, Friendship, and Point Breeze. Worst showings, or indeed, no showings, were in parts of the Hill, Arlington Heights, and Hazelwood.

Mike:


Mike did his best South of the River in Duquesne Heights, Regent Square, Brookline, and Beechview. Generally strong in the South, Lamb tanked in the Hill and in St. Clair. Both Mike and Bill did their worst in primarily African-American neighborhoods.

Hop:


Hop didn't do too well overall, but he did his best in the primarily African-American neighborhoods, especially Lincoln-Lemmington-Belmar.

What does this all mean to those of us (including both me and Anonymous) who did not vote for Bob O'Connor? Who would have won without Bob O'Connor in the race. What does it mean for the future of Pittsburgh Politics? What is the point? Why am I asking all these questions? Will I end this post with a profanity?

The answer to the last question is "No... ya bastard".

Houston, We Have a Crossover

It brings great joy to my little bureaucratic heart to discuss an article in the PG that discusses not only Pittsburgh Politics but also touches on Pittsburgh Bureaucracy. Now, if the article would only reference The Machine That Goes PING!, I'd get no work done today whatsoever.

Democratic mayoral candidate William Peduto said yesterday that he wants to "professionalize" appointments to city agencies such as the Urban Redevelopment Authority or the zoning board by choosing candidates from a list developed by a third-party panel....

Peduto, a city councilman from Point Breeze, said if he were mayor, anyone could apply to be on the city agencies, and a third-party panel would study the candidates and issue recommendations on appointees to the mayor.

"These authorities spend hundreds of millions [of dollars] each year. We must take politics out of this process to create boards that accurately represent the interest of the citizens, not the special interests," Peduto said at a news conference yesterday....

You'd think that I'd be giddy writing about this, but, ever the knee-jerk contrarian, I am of mixed minds.

First, I wish to reiterate the point that Politics is the Enemy of Good Government [Rule #6], so anything, in my opinion, that reduces Government's dependence on Political Inanities can't be a completely bad thing. It would be nice, for a change, to allow bureaucrats the freedom to "Do What's Right" and not what's politically popular.

ON THE OTHER HAND: Peduto's quote, "These authorities spend hundreds of millions [of dollars] each year. We must take politics out of this process to create boards that accurately represent the interest of the citizens, not the special interests..." is probably one of the dumbest things I've seen in print since I read 1001 Dumb Things in Print by Herb Dumdedumb (Harper-Collins Press).

The POINT of having political oversight, at least in theory, is to ensure that the interests of the citizens IS accurately represented. The POINT of having qualified people on these boards is to ensure some level of responsibility for spending those millions of dollars. SOMEBODY NEEDS TO ULTIMATELY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND BE THE FRIGGIN' GROWNUP

If anything, Peduto should be pushing for MORE political oversight, not LESS. Now, we bureaucrats are overly burdened with towing the political line, this is true. From my deeply ingrained passion in political theory, however, I would not like it if us Bureaucrats were given unfettered free reign in defiance of our tradition of local popular democracy.

ON THE FURTHER HAND: C'mon, seriously... does Bill actually expect this to be effective?

OK, let's assume that the 6th Seal is Broken and we end up with a Peduto administration. Bill goes to his appointment committees, who come back with a list of appointees to the various Authorities. These appointees, who are not necessarily beholden to Bill's Political ideals, but operate, rather, on their own skill, independent of the mayor's office.

At least at first.

Then the URA, HACP, SEA, PWSA, PA, etc. goes and does something bureaucratically effective, but unpopular at the mayor's office. Mayor Bill get's leaned on by those that got him elected and is told to "do something about this." ...

Then what happens? Either the Mayor stares down those that elected him (politically risky), or the Mayor interferes where he said he wouldn't (governmentally risky). If it is the former, re-election is going to be difficult; if it is the latter, the Bureaucracies have been put back into the same position where they were before... just where Bill said he wouldn't put them. And now, the Bureaucrats are in this nebulous grey area where they're not supposed to be beholden to the Mayor, but yet they are.

And hilarity ensues.

ON THE FOOT: This is kinda what Murphy did way back in 1992 by promoting various community organizers to positions of power. Mulugetta Birru, formerly of the Homewood CDC, was promoted to head the URA; Stanley Lowe, formerly of Manchester, was picked to head HACP; Tom Cox, also formerly a North Side activist, was chosen as Deputy Mayor for Policy. Murphy's strategy, it seems, was to chose people that had experience in the community and use their talents on a broader scale.

We can debate the efficacy of his choices later.

Now, URA is headed by a former URA Bureaucrat, HACP is headed by a former HACP Bureaucrat, and other agencies are similarly staffed. So rock on Pizzburgh Bureaucratz.

ON THE RIGHT EARLOBE:Is he seriously considering letting anyone apply to be on the city agencies? Really? Obviously Bill hasn't spent enough time listening to people speak at the public comment portion of council meetings. Those people are insane... rip roaring mad... one step away from hanging out with a Doormouse and a March Hare, offering tea to strange girls that wander by.

But more to the point, what would ensure that this appointment committee would appoint people that either (1) know what they're doing, (2) represent the public interest, and (3) can be held politically accountable?

Well.. hey, the school board is elected and they're... well... you know.

So, if ANYONE is actually going to be able to be appointed, I'm nominating me, my drinking buddies, and Sombrero Man. That'll show 'em.

OK, I've enjoyed my nexus of Politics and Bureaucracy.

In sum: this is the most expensive post in the whole hospital. We leased it back from the company we sold it to. That way it comes under the current budget and not under capital accounts. Thank you; we do our best.

PING!

Thursday Mayoral Discussion

I'm going to pause from my Federalist screeds for awhile and offer my opinion on the Pittsburgh Mayoral Race. (Democratic primary only. Sorry Joe.)

There is one mayoral candidate that holds full sway over the race. He has crystallized the issues and he has set himself up as the standard against which the other candidates are to be judged. His opinions are well known and, while many disagree with him, he has shown an ability to push his agenda. He has offered a broad vision for the City of Pittsburgh which the other candidates have reacted against. His specter dominates the other candidates.

He is Tom Murphy. He is the man the other candidates are trying to beat in this election, and here's why:

This campaign season quickly descended into two major themes. The first is the "Whatever we've been doing, we've been doing it wrong and I, the other candidate, can do it better" theme. For example, look at the words that they've chosen: "New Leadership," "Wrong Track," "New Pittsburgh," etc. Major criticisms have been leveled against certain mayoral pet projects and certain policy decisions, some, all or none of which may be warranted, given the situation. All the candidates have chosen to say that the current mayor is wrong in his choices and that, as Mayor, they would have chosen differently. The result is a comical round of shadow boxing, with the shadow determining the course of the fight.

The other theme, a closely related corollary to the first, is summarized as "Hey, I'm 'hip'. I'm 'cool'." (with the implication that the current mayor is neither). The most evident example of this is the out doing of O'Connor's Trolleys by Lamb's Trains. 'Cool' is supposed to be equated with 'progressive' which is supposed to attract 'young people' which is itself supposed to be 'good'. Everyone is trying to be cool, 'cept Peduto who honestly believes himself to be the epitome of coolness in Pittsburgh Politics... which is kinda like being the top kickboxer in Belgium.

But I digress.

'Cool' is supposed to be the antipode to the Murphy policies.

In any event, the formulation is clear:

Tom Murphy was wrong; Tom Murphy was uncool.

Candidate X opposes Tom Murphy; Candidate X is cool.
Candidate X is more opposed to Tom Murphy and more cool than Candidate Y.

Therefore, vote for Candidate X over Candidate Y.

The irony, of course, is that here Murphy has pretty much set the agenda for his potential successors and their campaigns. They are rhetorically chained to opposing his previous string of decisions and the winner will be chained to the political and governmental realities that Murphy created.

Real progress in solving the problems facing Pittsburgh is going to come from neither Anti-Murphy nor reductio ad cool systems of policies. The real pressing problems facing Pittsburgh (population decline, eroding of tax base, continual loss of employment, increase of crime, decrease of educational quality, environmental degradation, etc.) cannot be solved by the Mayor of Pittsburgh alone. A combination of local, regional, state, and national strategies, both public and private, are needed to truly remedy the City of Pittsburgh. The next mayor, whoever that may be, is going to find himself able to control only a small chunk of the strategy and will have to beg, borrow, and steal in order to get what he wants from the other players.

The City has been in trouble for a long time, longer than this mayor or his predecessor or her predecessor can take full responsibility for. I would wager that if Murphy had done exactly the opposite of what he did do, the City would still be in trouble... only different trouble... and the current candidates would still be running against his policies.

Bob O'Connor, Michael Lamb, Bill Peduto, Louis Kendrick, Les Ludwig, Daniel F. Repovz and Gary W. Henderson are all still running for Mayor. Tom Murphy is not.

But in 4 years we'll be hearing the same thing against the new guy...

Activate the Way-Back Machine

From this article:

They say they've seen [Bob O'Connor] challenge Murphy's initiatives without offering any sense that he has a broad agenda of his own, or wonder if he can make tough decisions that risk alienating some people for the greater good. Some council [members] wonder if he's too cozy with the public safety unions, whom a mayor might have to face down at contract time, and they've sensed him waffling on difficult issues like stadium financing.

"He has to stand for something beyond not being Tom Murphy, and it's not clear to me what that is," said Councilman Sala Udin, who views O'Connor as a shrewd pragmatist lacking in firm ideology to stand on.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Bob O'Connor has a good word for everyone. But does he have what it takes to be mayor of Pittsburgh?", Sunday, April 29, 2001

Interesting reading.

Makes you wonder how much Bobby O has changed in 4 years, if he has at all, and if that's bad or not. Also makes you wonder if being a "good guy" makes you qualified to be Mayor, or not, and if it matters.

It's not News, it's Snooze...

The headline that any one of us could have written about 2 years ago: O'Connor wins Democratic endorsement in city mayoral race, or more succinctly O'Connor gets Democratic endorsement.

Yawn.

Wake me when they report that Tom Murphy is an alien overlord controlling Bob O'Connor through mind altering drugs in order to impress Jodie Foster. Or that former Allegheny County Commissioner Larry Dunn was really King of the Weasel People. Or that Pittsburgh will have a real Republican Primary with actual multiple, viable candidates.

Which of the above is the most likely?